I don't understand how anyone could know for certain on the question of God. To me, they must be using the term to mean something different to what I do.

Widespread atheist objection based upon proof also falls foul of this fallacy.

(July 20, 2013 at 2:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Widespread atheist objection based upon proof also falls foul of this fallacy.

Unless of course we're talking about the interventionist God of Abrahamic theism and other theisms, in which case proof would absolutely be expected. And any deity which doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

(July 20, 2013 at 1:34 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 12:57 am)christcahinkilla Wrote: ok so,

"i believe in god(s)" theism

"i do not believe in god(s)" atheism

"i do not have a belief on the subject of god(s) because there is no means for me to know" agnostic

theist and agnostic are contradictory terms.
atheist and agnostic are contradictory terms.

Are belief and knowledge contradictory terms?

OP, answer this above statement or GTFO and stop wasting everyone's time.

(July 20, 2013 at 3:32 am)MikeTheInfidel Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 2:55 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Widespread atheist objection based upon proof also falls foul of this fallacy.

Unless of course we're talking about the interventionist God of Abrahamic theism and other theisms, in which case proof would absolutely be expected. And any deity which doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

fail

Show me how anyone ever would have transferable proof. It just is never possible. Never was and never will be.

Case in point: this reality is all made by God. Proof.

(July 20, 2013 at 4:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 3:32 am)MikeTheInfidel Wrote: Unless of course we're talking about the interventionist God of Abrahamic theism and other theisms, in which case proof would absolutely be expected. And any deity which doesn't intervene is irrelevant.

fail

Show me how anyone ever would have transferable proof. It just is never possible. Never was and never will be.

Case in point: this reality is all made by God. Proof.

That's a claim - not proof.

(July 20, 2013 at 12:29 am)Chas Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 12:02 am)christcahinkilla Wrote: ok, so what i get out of that is that monotheism would be more acceptable than polytheism?

---

i say that because the agnostic stance is much more accepting of an unknown

No, agnostic atheism is simply "I don't believe that there are any gods, but I can't prove it". That is, the lack of belief (a-theism) is not knowledge (a-gnostic).

Thank you.

(July 20, 2013 at 4:49 am)genkaus Wrote: That's a claim - not proof.

It's as much proof as there has ever been. If there is a God, then you and everything you experience are proof of his activity. It's not proof because we have an arbitrary selector: "if".

I don't 'claim' that God exists. I believe that God exists.

(July 20, 2013 at 5:17 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 20, 2013 at 4:49 am)genkaus Wrote: That's a claim - not proof.

It's as much proof as there has ever been. If there is a God, then you and everything you experience are proof of his activity. It's not proof because we have an arbitrary selector: "if".

I don't 'claim' that God exists. I believe that God exists.

That makes it pretty simple. If that's all the proof there is, then that means there is no proof at all. Finally, the theist-atheist debate can be laid to rest.

(July 19, 2013 at 11:55 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote: "I do not believe god(s) exist"

"I do not have a belief on the subject of whether or not god(s) exist"

huge difference in these two ideas.

anyone want to discuss?

Why? This is a dead topic.

It is completely consistent because one word "agnostic" is a qualifier, not the stand alone word people have twisted it to mean.

"a"=without "gnostic"=knowledge. Nowhere does that word say anything about a position. So for the world to make sense it has to go in front of theist or atheist.